Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] First stab at objectives and a definition of VI
- To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] First stab at objectives and a definition of VI
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 07:16:10 -0500
My brief answer, from my understanding, is that Vertical Integration is defined
in respect to the product distribution chain and the relationship between the
choke point for the product (registry) and its distribution point (registrar),
not the corporate structure itself (ownership or contractual relationship
between Ry and Rr).
If the product, in this case the names, are available as recommendation 19 of
the gtld recommendations requires, then the product is not being restricted to
the vertically integrated distribution chain.
Where i think it gets fuzzy, and an issue for the WG and the relationship rules
between Registries and Registrars and not definitions, is whether it is really
possible for there to be full and equal access for all registrars in cases
where there is a controlling ownership or affiliation relationship between a
Registry and Registrar, despite the requirement for full and equal access to
all registrars. And the auxiliary question, also a WG and not definitional
question, whether this maters for names in cases where there is no market power
or in the case of the internal consumption only .brand or boutique names.
On 5 Feb 2010, at 04:24, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> I have to admit don't understand why the equal access part is in the proposed
> definition. If a registry is vertically integrated with a registrar, it can
> still be required to provide full and equal access to its TLD to all
> accredited registrars. For me, any VI definition need only describe the
> relationship between the integrated parties, not any theoretical relationship
> between them and other parties which may be governed by other circumstances
> (such as an ICANN contract for example).
> Avri, Milton, as you say you have already discussed the subject at some
> length, perhaps you can enlighten me as to why the equal access part was
> deemed necessary.
> Le 4 févr. 2010 à 21:03, Milton L Mueller a écrit :
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
>>>> So just to make sure I got this right, the definition that is being
>>> proposed at this stage is the following?
>>>> Vertical integration is defined as a business structure in which there
>>> is no separation between the registry operator and the registrar; they are
>>> owned and operated by the same company and the domain name supplier is not
>>> required to provide access to independent firms to sell names under its
>> Yes, that's a perfectly fine definition. But the good news is that Avri's
>> proposed definition really has very few, if any, substantive differences
>> from a correct one:
>>> Vertical integration is defined as a business structure in which there is
>>> no separation between the registry operator and the registrar in relation
>>> to a particular gTLD; they are either owned and operated by the same
>>> company or have another contractual affiliation that covers the specific
>>> gTLD, and the domain name supplier is not required to provide full and
>>> equal access to independent firms to sell names under its TLD.
>> Other than the phrase " or have another contractual affiliation that covers
>> the specific gTLD", which is a bit vague, I have no problem with this
>> definition. This is in fact not what our difference was within NCUC. It is
>> the equal access issue that didn't seem to be understood at the time, but
>> this definition includes that.
>> I still think it wise to include the economic reference and the official
>> definition used therein, so that policy experts and real economists who
>> observe our work at least know we did our homework. I do not consider
>> Wikipedia to be an authoritative source on anything, and typically no
>> subject matter expert does.